Originally posted by BrilloPad
View Post
Then he asserted that that difference gave men, generally speaking, greater chess potential. This is not universally accepted and up or debate / study.
Seems a bit harsh to label him a dinosaur for using his own anecdotal experience, as far as we know, to suggest that women are generally predisposed to have less chess-playing potential, while it's perfectly fine to suggest that women are generally better at multi-tasking.
It's intuitively reasonable to expect (and pretty much also universally accepted) that - generally speaking - being good at certain things often means one is less competent at other unrelated things.
Comment